>> all right. are we heeding ready to guess good afternoon, everyone this guess side san francisco land use & transportation i'm chair of the committee to my right is

supervisor scott wiener is the vice chair and to my left is supervisor peskin our clerk is mr. environmental impact our young thank you phil jackson and jessie larson from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting mr. clerk, any announcements? >> electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the march 8, 2016 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much could you please call item number 4. >> item 4. >> ordinance amending the planning code for this empowering in the upper market transcript contribute to expand to the second story with the conditional use authorization. >> thank you very much

supervisor wiener is the sponsor of this item i'll give him the floor. >> thank you very much you thank you very much madam chair that is nearly crafted to provide a path for the record forwarding for the second story bar used to be legal it under the planning code in the upper market market transit zoning district the legislations was considered and supported newsom by the planning commission by the upper castro merchant at debois triangle association it is for upper market instead is provides a conditional use pathway for existing spaces within an external stairway for the pathway to move forward i ask for your support address the planning department is here if there are any questions and -

>> thank you very much. >> thank you supervisor scott wiener i'm here to report that was recorded and recommended unanimously for so forth i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you seeing none, no questions on the board on the committee let's see if we have missing minute that want to speak public comment is for which ever you'll have 2 minutes a psychologist chime for 30 seconds left seeing none, public comment is closed. >> madam chair. >> are you coming up. >> public comment is closed. is closed at this time commissioner low what do you want to do. >> thank you, madam chair i move we forward item 4 to say 80 to the full board i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> a motion to move with a positive recommendation

unanimously thank you thank you mr. clerk and mr. wiener item one supervisor peskin is the sponsor. >> item number one for the intention of the board of supervisors to order. >> excuse me. mr. young can you call one and two together. >> item one for the intention of the board of supervisors ordered the vacation of jane kim bonded by the assessor oversees block and jackson street as part of improvements to the chinese hospital eased setting the hearing date for the opposition of the public right-of-way and item two the eviction for the alley and jackson street as part of improvement to the chinese hospital improving the to have the purpose and sails agreement with the chinese hospital 0 for

the rights in the third utilities and private property owners. >> supervisor peskin. >> subject to public comment i'd like to make another motion to continue those two items to our meeting next week. >> okay. >> is there a motion. >> sure i move we continue these items to the meeting next monday. >> thank you for repeating that without objection at least take public comment any public comment on items one and two and seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll take that without objection. this will be continued >> yes. this item is continued until march next week. >> that's correct. >> mr. clerk, call item number

3. >> item number 3 reserves asking the transportation authority to delve the series for the city how it utilizing e a lierltd the investment authority for the treasure island housing to 40 perishes. >> thank you supervisor jane kim is the author i don't see her here yet let's skip and go to item number 5 thank you. >> item number 5 ordinance amending the planning code for the conditional use authorization for the removal of any residential unit and to exempt the conditional use unauthorized units with no legal path to legalization for the units that have approval and snachlz notice of conditional use authorization ordered for the legalization of the

unauthorized unit that is feasible under the planning commission approval it's removal. >> thank you scompleenz. >> that was before i did - >> okay. perfect supervisor avalos is here just in time to hear supervisor avalos we just called item number 5. >> thanks for joining us today. >> thank you. >> no problem. >> a little bit out of breathe this is the third piece this is left the housing measure that is securing housing for tenants and in-law units and stimulants that is left i believe we're working on language to perhaps apply the conditional use mandatory discretionary review verse conditional use we're waiting on

language so i'd like to looking at supervisor wiener to continue this much of next week would be - >> supervisor wiener probably has a better angle he was proposing the mainstreamed for the discretionary review authorization. >> i was under the impression we needed to refer this to the planning commission and through the chair but maybe that mr. gibner. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney what i understand the conversations have been you're talking about different options how the corrective instead of the cu might work that may require a referral back to planning rather than accounting those amendments the committee to continue to the call of the

chair and seek some input from the planning commission and go to the planning commission with the potential amendment and then the chair would after the planning commission meeting the chair of the meeting can reschedule and make the amendment at that time. >> the motion we'll make i'll let's have input to continue the item to move to the call of the chair and referring to the planning commission or rereferring to the planning commission for a hearing and feedback and once it's done the chair could a reschedule this. >> looks like we're in vaerment thank you a motion to move to the call of the chair. >> public comment. >> excuse me. >> let's take public comment at this point on item number 5 anyone from the public wish to comment all right. public comment is closed. at this point, a motion and we'll take that without objection. that item passes

thank you of course, supervisor jane kim's the author of items 3 asked her staff to come down and present in here absence let's keep moving forward recall item 3. >> item 3. >> resolution urging the board of directors the treasure island transbay joint powers authority how the city can utility the revitalization for the treasure island to 40 percent. >> excuse me. a staff presentation on item number 3? >> morning bob what the transportation authority i have background information. >> please present. >> thank you.

>> thank you chair cohen and members of the committee bob beck with the transportation authority and as context for today's discussion just a moment. >> wanted to provide in background on the finance plan for the treasure island program many context of the housing plan as 2011 and some of the challenges and opportunities that are before us as we move forward with the program. >> the housing program for

treasure island calls for the communication of 8 thousand new ruled 25 percent are 25 units will be affordable and 4 hundred and 35 of the for the residential units initiative and three hundred with 5 percent would be inclusionary housing constructed by the developer the balance of the florescent be with the mayor's office of economic workforce development mayor's office of housing and community development the map before you shows the sites that are were the ludicrously plan for the affordable housing and four sites indicated that were originally programmed more affordable housing when the program was promoted with thirty percent affordable and there is still the opportunity this could

be available and 80 sites that are in the current plan for the affordable housing. >> so some of the challenges and opportunities that are before us with the land use plan for treasure island revenues side and cost side and timing as well as some opportunities that are embedded from the land use plan to increase to 40 percent affordable the context in 2011 are programmed was originally envisioned to provide thirty percent accountable but a redevelopment and have the stage share the tax cent to help to

finance the affordable housing and we the affordable housing park ranger foyer treasure island is effected by the high infrastructure costs we have associated with our programming included the geotech work on the island and new utilities and infrastructure including the ferry term and three hundred acres of open space as part of program in february of 2011 the mayor sorry governor jerry brown throbbed his development in california and that left our program with the need to re-evaluate how the infrastructure would be fined the absence of redevelopment so the solution moving forward was to replace redevelopment financing and infrastructure

financing district which will utilize the commitment by the city of chicago the local property tax to fund the infrastructure think on the island the tax increment 9 the bug difference if 80 percent tackling taxation able to 64 percent of tax increment available and in looking at how to adjust that to lose of revenue many elements of the financing of the public infrastructure that are not discretion the geotech work to move the island and the utilities we had a lot of flexibility there and so unfortunately, the program element that bore the brunt of the redevelopment was the the affordable housing and the affordable housing participation was changed from thirty percent

to 25 percent. >> the housing plan and final housing plan utilized 47 percent of the tax increment from the local share as well as a commitment from the developer of 17 thousand plus per month to help fund the affordable housing component this table summarizes the differences continue the 25 percent and the thirty percent in 2011 as envisioned and put forward and again, the large loss of 4 hundred units of affordable housing will be the environment approval for the units because of uncertainty around redevelopment at the time they were provisions the housing plan

that contemplate the potential of reauthorization of redevelopment including which automatically reverified verified the program to thirty percent if the key provisions were reconstituted that would be 60 percent of tax increment available for public infrastructure improvements that the comboiblth of the i f d for the thirty years to 45 years and that the basic the other elements of redevelopment the eligible improvements will be consistent with what was available under redevelopment law. >> if only some of those provisions are met there is a provision for us to revert back to 27 percent affordable housing so the challenges and opportunities that are before us

supervisor kim's resolution spoke specifically to ab 2 there are 3 different state legislations passed since 2011 modifying the rules under which the infrastructure district what about for the record ab 2 and the i f d or the infrastructure financing or the i f r d district in terms of term the both those are providing for a 25 year and the i f d provides for a 40 year term additional flexibility when it which can is start for the individual areas within the financing district so that some of the ditches the term are mitigated by a responsibility the timing of the 40 year requirement the e f d authorizes the local

entities to commit and leverage the vehicle fees from the state in addition to the local property tax share but otherwise ab 2 i r f d and e f d only relate to the local pledge pledge of tax increment and not the state tax commencement from that prospective ab 2 does not grow the pie of available financing more affordable housing again, the it didn't make any difference from redevelopment number one none of these provide assess to the state share commencement of implement they require an election from the district and minor differences

the authorized improvements and the e f d and i f did no specific requirements the ab 2 has a 25 percent affordable housing requirement as well as a b two calls for a potential reauthorization of every 10 years is a significant challenge to the ab 2 delivering the affordable housing we have some challenges that are southern funding sources that are included the performa in 2011 that are no longer available to help to finance affordable housing also a significant increase in construction covets over the last 5 years we're looking at the hard costs of communication almost 50 percent higher than

2011 we have some changes on costs and the revenue side with the 25 percent but we're working with tihdi and the mayor's office of housing to update the performa's to look at how we fund the affordable housing and what the time work to deliver the affordable housing this map shows you when the parcels are expected to be made available to tihdi and tida over the 2030 so that is our earliest opportunity for development of the housing in terms of opportunities the housing plan and financing plan calls for us at 5 years following the effective dates of

development agreement to revenue whether or not the changes are to rae constitute the development in the 5 year verizon is coming up this summer from the changes have been made to replicate the public financing that is available would have been available for the law as i said we'll have the option to revert to 35 percent available and some of the changes have been made we have the option to revert to 27 percent available and performa's at each level on the revenue and cost side we'll have a better sense of the time horizon as well as the gap. >> so as i mentioned works in progress we have updating the 25 percent affordable and looking at opportunities and prepare a performa at 27 percent

identifying a new mix of both units and housing types to be able to deliver the 27 percent performa and looking at what the gap will be if thirty percent we're recent to meet the housing plan requirement. >> with that, i'll conclude any comments. >> your presentation we appreciate it supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam chair thank you for that presentation which was very detailed and very helpful and actually updating us on the current financing for the treasure island project as well as some of the challenges that the project faces wonderful project is that i know i recall unanimous support from the board of supervisors and will be a transformational so i think this is something we all support i

know we also every single one of us wants to have as much affordable housing as the we can from our projects and particularly our major projects that is important to be i think very open and transparent with the public and not just throw around numbers that may or may not achievable from public resources like other affordable housing to get there we had a discussion at the full board last week about the notation of 40 percent affordable housing which is wonderful we can get up to 40 percent affordable housing i'm for it but an implementation that the 40 percent a hash tag is the new thirty that was somehow x tracked from the developer from the developer had been through tints and hard nose negotiation the developer agreed to put in 40 percent we know

from the 5 m project this is not true half is more like towing percent and the rest from taxpayer subsidies and the fulsome project we know as it was announced a hash tag is the thirty that was 40 half of the percentage is from the developer and the other half paid bayshore for by the taxpayers of san francisco's we should use significant taxpayer dollars and a good use of public fund during the housing crisis but it is important we also are candid with the public that we're not just x that's a great question concessions the developer the public is paying for that i wanted to ask a few questions right now the approved treasure island development plan is 25

percent affordable; is that correct? >> yes. >> now i just heard from you that given some changes and funding sources and elevation in construction costs there are challenges for this project 0 achieve the 25 percent. >> yes. there are challenges on the cost and revenue side we're assessing. >> i see there are two options under the current plan or the current direction that if certain things fall into place one from the affordable 25 and the option to go from 25 to thirty 3ers what - where would the money come from 25 percent or 25 to thirty percent.

>> the in both cases the additional public resources mr. need to be brought to the project to again even though to the thirty percent we'll need to be able to dedicate 60 percent vufblt of the thirty percent for i mean sorry to the developer developer infrastructure improvements on the project and so that would currently under we have 57 taxation increments dedicated to the projects and 82 and a half percent roughly 47 percent total is dedicated to the public infrastructure improvements so we'll need to grow the amount of money to dedicate to match the dedication to the public infrastructure components of 60 percent and then we'll also need to address

the gap to deliver the additional housing that was originally it was originally envisioned in 2011 and the way to do that would be to increase the stated pledge or recapture a state pledge of the share, however, that's not come to pass. >> in terms of increasing the taxation increment for the affordable housing where would that that is tax increment is a term it is tax dollars that are dedicated to the infrastructure or affordable housing whatever the case in moving the thirty percent affordable housing you'd have to increase the amount of tax commencements i'd like where will that money come if where will it otherwise be used for . >> the fiscal analysis for the

development of treasure island showed that the good there is 64 percent of partitioning available to the city of that currently 57 percent were pledged to the project so 7 percent pharynx increments along with other sources generated by the development of the project that are going to the general fund costs associated with the ailed population. >> so 64 percent of the go tax increment by the treasure island is available to the city of san francisco the other 36 percent goes to the school district to city college and other required uses our partners that share with the property tax. >> yes. >> the 64 percent of the city the percentage is pledged to the

infrastructure and affordable housing needs of this treasure island project the other approximately 7 percent community-based organization into the city of san francisco general fund? >> correct. >> it's a that's for users for public health or parks or roads or fire or affordable housing if we choose to use it more affordable housing whether it is the bayview or castro or south of market or whatever the case and correct. >> so get to thirty percent we'll be taking that 7 percent of the tax generated partitioning generate by the treasure island and we're simply going to make a policy decision to make that to buy additional affordable housing on treasure island. >> that's one option. >> i'm not saying any way i'm expecting that that is perfectly a terrific use of money to have built more affordable housing on

treasure island but i think that is important for the public to understand the choice of using tax dollars we can choose to used for 40 housing on treasure island or other neighborhood like the bayview or sunset or mental health services or homeless housing for a million different reasons the point this is not a good developer coming up with more money it is public taxpayer money now to get to the 40 percent with from 25 to thirty percent will require the city to basically dedicate the remaining tax increment that is not currently dedicated to the treasure island projects to get if the 40 percent to other temple percent on top of that

now you mentioned that there are state some state laws one or two were mentioned in supervisor kim's resolution i think you said that currently didn't have any available money for this purpose. >> ab 2 which is mentioned the resolution is a provides a framework for the infrastructure but on deals with the local sources of the revenue not make available state sources. >> and the infrastructure financing district is when we say we're going to dedicate as discussed the taxation increment from the projects to fund the infrastructure or affordable housing or whatever the says maybe. >> correct. >> ab 2 doesn't provide state funding only san francisco, california make a choice we've use what is otherwise general fund taxpayer money to build

more affordable housing. >> yes. it provides a third alternate framework to the infrastructure and revitalization financing the district for the enhances infrastructure. >> not to say it is a good or bad idea again, the best use of those resources let's get to 30 or 35 or 40 percent but i think that is really important for the public to understand that is not about going through the treasure island developer and saying we want to bargain but and hard noticed feshgsz or negotiations and get you, mr. developer and ms. developer to put up more affordable housing from your profits that is not what is being discussed here just as that was not what was happening on the 5 m or 160 fulsome talking about san francisco are

taxpayer money to increase the affordability which can be a terrific thing and affordable housing is a great use of taxpayer money but important to be clear about what will actually be paying for this - in terms of - you just said that the city of san francisco has control in some way or another ever 64 first of the tax increments generated by the project we have no control over the school district and the city college, etc. pr we're at 47 percent pledge to the treasure island for the infrastructure affordable housing to get it to thirty percent from 25 percent we'll have to use the entire 64 percent to do that what - in terms of what sources will pay to go from thirty percent to 40 percent will that be an

additional transfer in the san francisco general fund. >> we haven't run the performa's on 40 percent but so getting to thirty percent will require the 64 percent local tax share plus lloyd some public financing to go from thirty to 40 percent will yeah will require another source of public funds and require to go back and modify the 1rer789 and potentially also to develop modify the commands. >> getting from thirty to 40 percent what is the in terms of the number of dollars involved what is that cost approximately a range. >> it is - it would be a very rough range we'll be talking about in excess of one million dollars. >> from thirty to two to three percent after we'll dedicated

every penny of tax increments and to get to thirty percent spends an excess of one and $30 million i think that comes from the san francisco general fund a hundred million dollars in lui fees or come perhaps out of the affordable housing bond we passed or the affordable housing trust fund those are sources you but all the requirements are the choices it is not funding affordable housing or it is coming if other critical food serves out of the affordable housing trust fund the developer what in lui fees again that is already money that has been programmed more affordable housing and just means we made a decision to build the housing on treasure island that would be a terrific decision may or may not we know that there are other

parts of city many needs affordable housing to achieve a greater exasperate this is helpful i appreciate the information. >> thank you supervisor peskin. >> supervisor kim has joined us supervisor kim would you like to say a couple of words. >> i apologize. i was not here to make the introduction but thank you bob for being here the purchase of hearings i've called really begin a conversation about how we can increase the accountability on treasure island and what are the multiply pauthd we can examine when we had conceived the treasure island development platoon that was originally a redevelopment area plan but we committed to achieving thirty

percent affordable housing using the public tax increments when we learned that the development had the possibility of dissouthern california we moved to an i f d structure that limited our ability to use the tax increments more affordable housing throb lowering our housing to 25 percent i've thought about this over the last 5 years to get back to the thirty percent the introduction of ab 2 signed by the governor in the fall reopened that conversation the hearing was to examine what can help us capture more we can have more, more affordable housing on treasure island and if not it is not a tool that will help us the assessment of the report we got today what are other ways to buy in more money into the

development to build more affordable housing i want to appreciate supervisor wiener's question i think that is important with that we build the affordable housing where there is development potential and entitlement there isn't development the entire city for more geographyic entity close to percent is happening if we know we're building 8 thousand units that are entitled we should look at the projects and see how to there the affordability that are in the pipeline and that we can ploy additional funding i'm interested in examining the affordable housing bond that is passed so the property owners can contribute to building more affordability the city so there children and grandchildren can live here and examining the other options available i'm excited to working

closely with treasure island authority and we're working closely with richards and faye along with former member john that is the audience to examine the ways to bring the affordability up and because we're achieving new levels of development at 40 percent including the affordable housing what are the multiple options that the city can look at reaching the affordability level and in the development. >> i also think that it is important we reexamine the two amendments i was building to get in with the commitment of the vice chairperson increase the affordable units to 25 percent and allowing for an increase of thirty percent should state law which was within 5 years that 5 years is coming up upcoming in

june the next couple of months it is the time we should be examining the options supervisor avalos to chiu u chiu and supervisor wiener and tom ammiano that offered the legislation i saw the loose to a realize to build up to two to three percent affordable housing we are that not successful the inclusion of the treasure island but again, if you issue to reestablish the tools the san francisco throughout the cities of california that is choeshl and possible we called been the tida to explore the development to leverage legislation and other ways to establish the 40 on treasure island and being clear about going from thirty to 35 percent from the 20 percent

income range and phil the rest we've done in other deals that is one and 50 percent of afternoon area income we're drastically underbuilding affordable housing and households that make between 80 and one and $30,000 that's another educator we believe that is important to figure ways to use the general fund our supporters support they want the tax dollars to be used for more affordable poor i know you've gone through the presentation i've looked through and you looked at creating a performa at both 25 i'm sorry letting elite me put this up. >> at both - >> i'm sorry at 25 and 27.5

percent which is what we're currently at 27.5 we will automatically move into place in june isn't that correct. >> yes. and also at thirty percent. >> also at thirty percent can you explain to the members of the public how the amendment that we were able to negotiate in 2011 how do we - how do we get to the 27.5 percent. >> the housing plan session 9 of the housing plan has a very candidate division from the funnel structure or lemons the redevelopment reconstitute we will automatically revert to 30 percent at regionally planned only some of those measures are taken for instance, likelytion of what are eligible public

infrastructure and construction costs or partial restoration of the funding that was available for the public improvements we'll automatically revert at the end of 5 years to a specific number of market-rate and affordable housing it equals 47.2 percent when you do the math sometimes, it 27 and sometimes 27 and a half percent that is an automatic reversion if we were not able to go to thirty might revert to 27 percent we'll need to there was not a performa done in 2011 on what the assumptions would be about the mix of units types and the unit sizes and housing senior verse family so we'll need to generate a new step of assumptions about what that will

be but additional entitlements authorization to the city would be on the existing 20 parcels we would be through increasing the density on those types weep accomplish that 27 percent. >> i want to ask about the policies really to create 33 percent affordable wherever possible to do a performa at thirty percent on top of the 27 and a half and thirty percent. >> yeah. i could request that again, we focused on the provisions that are within the housing plan anything the others provisions require reopenly renegotiation by administrative code the financing but we can certainly get that performa to have that information. >> my understanding is the developer is looking at redoing the performa's given the chances in cost since 2011 ; is that correct. >> we have working with tihdi

to update the performa's on for the affordable housing the developer is updating the performa's for the costs of the infrastructure their obligated to provide we're looking at all the program elements. >> for the you know - explaining how tax increment and the infrastructure financing district were for the sake of the public it is very confusing how we utilize the tool to build little infrastructure and affordable housing can you - through the i f d of treasure island are we committed to bond against future tax increments. >> yeah. for the members of the public maybe i'll take it down to a lower level the existing property on treasure island historically was navy property the city and state didn't

collect property tax on that land whereas it turns into private owners the property tax is assessed on protein is roughly one percent of property value per year for the purposes of the program the revenues will be considered tax increments and infrastructure financing district allows the city to pledge our share of the property tax collected from the district as the property values increase to borrow borrow against the proposed values to the public infrastructure improvements as well as affordable housing on the island. >> so it is fair to characters us and borrowing money on future tax not available today to the city and county of san francisco. >> yes. that's- >> so a miss characterization to see is that the general fund

dollars used in any neighborhood not available today, if we have an i f p to bond against the future but limited to 9 neighborhoods where we are creating that tax value that general fund dollars in the future can't be used anywhere the neighborhood today that's correct. >> restraining orders are often called project generated revenues theirs projects that would not exist but for the development take place so nexus can we ploy that money into any neighborhood in san francisco. >> if we - not pledged to the program it will be general fund revenue. > in the future - >> but today, we bonded today can we use those dollars for the city anywhere the city. >> my understanding it needs

to be done with within the district it is formed. >> which is why we're examining whether or not we can utilizes those to generate the conflict of interests it don't exist bond against the future partitioning to build affordable housing today, if we were to wait, of course, to capture the tax commencement as it occurs, of course, the dollars can be used the future years and jars down the road but small percent in bits and pieces to put into a fund that eventually amounts to building more affordable housing; is that correct? >> yes. >> but if we bonded today, we can pool large amounts of capital the present time and bond against future tax increments not the general fund to build more larger affordable housing today. >> yes. >> okay i think that is important to

clarify to members of the public as to why it is a tool we ploy the dollars into the specific neighborhoods we generate that redevelopment is a complicated tool taxation increment helps to understand we examine certain neighborhoods to build affordable housing. >> okay thank you mr. becky have a couple of more questions i wanted to give a member of your commission to speak as well i know that chuck is here i want to give supervisor peskin an opportunity to speak thank you, supervisor kim mr. beck relative to the total sfla housing to get the basic infrastructure of the island ready for development i'm talking about the amount of dirty that has to the added to

the island for the seawalls and the creation of the ferry terminal what's the cost. >> the total cost of geothe total public improvements are one and a half billion dollars. >> and what is the actual status of treasure island project today related to when we believe that those infrastructureal improvements will start to proceed. >> we expect the - we took possession if the navy of the first portions of treasure island and yerba buena island about 60 percent of the land that be ultimately transferred to the city last may and last week and transferred the parcels they've taken bids an demolition contract for the structures on yerba buena island that we expect to mobilize within the

next two to three weeks and bias for the new water reservoirs that will be constructed on yerba buena island so we expected actually fieldwork to begin the month of march and precede over the coming years as we move forward. >> but the first phase your speaking to the yerba buena island development portion? >> we have a approved the first two sub phases which include the northern half of yerba buena island the southern half it the coast guard station and as well as tdr that are located in the south western along the citywide waterfront. >> and how many years before you get to the main event which

is the costly infrastructure improvements on treasure island as calendar to yerba buena. >> the developer has advertised they're first demolition contract for treasure island as well just last week and we expect the geotech work on the causeway in this area of treasure island to begin in the fall of this year. >> a are we are doing with the hazardous remediation situation. >> as i said 60 percent of the island has transferred to us the navy has completed all their work the navy is working on their next transfer for transfer 3 additional parcels to us they expect to make that offer this year the other environmental clean up

sites on the island we expect those with the exception of site 12 the residential area to be plenty the next two years by this time in 2018 we'll be down to one remediation type that last site will not be completed until the end of 2021 and and relative to the number of 8 thousand united u unit property the sub phases on y b you are how many. >> three hundred units. >> so the near term three hundred. >> the first sub phase on treasure island had been about an additional 5 hundred so 15 hundred units. >> thank you. >> sure. >> supervisor peskin. >> are you done. >> no. >> so let's go forward excuse

me. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair so i want to appreciate supervisor kim's comments and she's solute correct when our bonding the future tax revenue you're able to borrow the money up front and now and pay it back within interest over time for the future tax increments that's the idea as well as others tax structures that we're able to accelerate the taxation revenue i still think that the point of my questioning would to make clear and supervisor kim is in agreement that what we're talking about here by increasing the percentage of affordability on treasure island i'm not opposed to that affordability always good things pushing the envelope on affordability but

that is coming from respectfully from the general fund from the san francisco ethics commission and we're making a decision now that we're pledging future general fund tax revenues for many years to come instead of that money coming to the general fund for us to extend the bulb fund every year more affordable housing, or mental health services or police arrest fire or parks whatever the case we're making the decision not today literally but now to take that money off the table to borrow against it and legally pledge of allegiance to be spent for increases the amount of affordable housing on treasure island that might be a terrific idea but we're absolutelyth taxpay money not the developer and we have a lot of development happening in parts of city for the most part we see benefits to the general fund

that's why today for example, a lot of development with the praishgdz amongst other taxes we're recent to invest in important municipal needs we have not been able to invest in in the past that's because that increased property tax available is additional property tax revenue is available the general fund if we pledge it and borrow against it then for decades to come not going to be available and not saying what the right choice is but the trade offs it, it is public money not extracted in the developer in addition as indicated earlier of we pledge every single penny of the remaining available property tax the additional 67 percent that maybe gets us from

the 25 to the thirty percent and probable probably still require money the general fund in terms of the 40 percent this doesn't get anywhere near the 40 percent we'll have to pledge the additional praishgsz and then have to put in addition at a minimum one million dollars if not more of taxpayer money from the general fund or other source and so again those are your taxpayer trade offs that were making the decisions and that's an important thing for people to keep in mind. >> all right. thank you. >> why not take a moment and go to public comment i have a couple of cards i'd like to bring up laura

(calling names). >> and chair cohen thal /* through the chair can i ask jeff to speak first from the treasure island transportation authority. >> sure. >> thank you. i know that you are leading the effort to lead side task force an examining how to increase the affordability on treasure island thank you for being here to talk about that process and your role. >> thank you and good afternoon, supervisors my name is jeff a trld and i'm one of i think many members of the tida that are interested in seeing how much affordable housing much more

affordable housing we'll be able to develop on treasure island i believe we'll be forming a subcommittee to pick up this issue and look forward to working with any other task force that develops by the city with city staff and it is just a few comments that is a unique opportunity that we all have to build a brand new neighborhood from the ground up i don't know when this ever occurred in san francisco i think this is an important also a complex deal but i think an opportunity for us to take advantage of things we know going forward into the future one of the greatest needs we have and continue to have the city the need for more affordable housing has created interpretation pressures on middle-income and protecting

household and this is an opportunity to really take a long view and see how much of the land can be used to develop more affordable housing it is a complex deal and for more we not do anything to compromise the deal and slow down the deal to not allow this development to be any more delayed but at the same time there are various ways to look to see if we can increase the amount of affordable housing to thirty or 33 or 40 percent by not wanting to get into the specifics there are more skilled people but i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> about where we are on the entitlement commission. >> i have two questions have we examined possibly increasing

the number of years to collect the amount of funding the future to bond against more affordable housing i know that it is currently at 35 years. >> ; is that correct i'm sorry maybe that's a question for the director. >> thank you director. >> the 3 state legislations that we have available to us to form an infrastructure district two allows us to leverage for 45 years and - >> we're currently limited to 35 years. >> no, when we formed the district we will be using one of the 3 legislations so we'll either be take advantage of 40 or 45 years donna on the other characters. >> is 3 possible to buy or purpose additional parcels more affordable housing. >> yes. the after this 5 year trigger event that is in the

housing plan there is the opportunity within the housing plan for tida to purchase additional parcels the developer that he market-rate of that parcel. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> okay first public speaker (calling names). >> dave speaking on behalf of dave trashing. >> good afternoon. i'm lauren from human right 360 thank you for the many ways you've supported our work i'm here to support supervisor kim's

legislation to make recommendations to establish 40 percent affordable housing on treasure island for more than a decade 360 has operated the treatment one island currently we are held over two hundred people on the 0i8d the affordable health care act has included the challenges 360 has faced in providing the health services but they'll be capped at 90 days right now due to the lack of affordable housing inventory we're ocher discharging the clients into homelessness this bridges the gap when federal dollars cut the residential treatment in half the situations about become for dire we not only wish to maintain our stock of affordable

stock but want more tints we've been told by the mayor's office of housing they'll have no money so we'll unsure how to build on parcels we've been promised or how to build additional unit we're hopeful that the work forming 3 resolution will identify feasible options to help fund the 40 affordable housing on treasure island thank you. >> thank you already ladies and gentlemen, why not line up to have a quirk transition. >> good afternoon. i'm sherry from the treasure island known as tihdi i want to thank supervisor kim for they are advocacy we're supportive of the project and should the task force be created we request to be at the table our members are here we're at a

critical juncture after 20 years of planning we have parcels to be verified the first one online in 2018 we don't have the financing available to make the units a reality 9 shaping has change since 2011 so sources have dried-up and the costs are circulated we're working with the mayor's office of housing we were able to identify the gap funding for 2015-2016 by the rest of the affordable projects are uncertain until 2022 and 23 and beyond that when the capital resources are may or may not available that leaves hundreds of affordable units off-line and have no assurance from the mayor's office of housing that we will be able to build those units this lack of funding is unacceptable and problematic for

a number of reasons is send is message the new residents will be more important than the other residents and creates a possible dynamic and lastly the city is getting pads that are ready at no costs but the city needs 8 years to build on them we're hoping to count on our support to support the financing for the treasure island affordable housing program thank you very much. >> thank you. >> dave lopez. >> thank you very much thank you for allowing me to speak i'm defied lopez we've been fortunate to have programs on treasure island and exceptionally lucky we're in the phase one and have the gap funding from the mayor's office

and the continued care doing an amazing job to end veteran homelessness and getting this project off the ground is many years coming we complete work on the ground every year ever everyday to keep the folks here 40 percent is amazing unfortunately, we're having to leave san francisco and alameda and forest county sometimes they can't afford here so we urge this committee to support our efforts and we hope that they're getting to the 41 not causing delays and getting those veterans the affordable housing they need thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisors and good morning. i'm david i'm the

director of real estate development for community hours pales in comparison they support the supervisors efforts to bring the affordability to treasure island we've been in support of housing on treasure island supporting homeless family since 2002 we have a fiscal one and 2 units formally homeless families on treasure island we're excited to see the reconstruction be upon us and the ma years this project is the planning stages many factors change construction costs and other commented have increased and the state legislation has strengthened infrastructure financed to create new tools to create affordable housing and importantly the residence have succeeded and displacing families one thing the profound change for the vulnerable

families in and jd the rising costs we've made this more urgent we welcome the opportunity to create more affordability on treasure island this should addressed spectrum of households that can't afford housing this includes the critical making sure there is more money for the violation envisions and the next step seek to create more opportunities for the people to be part of new treasure island this task force helps us to create the opportunity we thank you, supervisor kim for this. >> thank you. >> good afternoon directors i'm a division director for catholic charities and sits sits on the tihdi i've worked for treasure island for 16 years serving the single-family homes

under the tihdi development i'd like to thank thank supervisor kim for the speciality on the treasure island the lack of funding this is unacceptable and problematic for a number of reasons i want to direct your attention to the capital issue throughout the years we've work hard to have a sense of community with housing model on treasure island to have we've served homeless families during the 16 years and helping them inform overcome combooblz to put them on the back burner puts the families back from housing i hope the board will support did gap funding for the neighborhood on treasure island i'm recommending that the meshes of the tihdi be part of housing on treasure island thank you for your time and consideration and support. >> i have got 4 more cards in

front of the me (calling names) >> then after that any if there is million that has not filled out a card you can feel free speak saw good afternoon. i'm fernando the director of the relations i want to commend supervisor kim to sued the way to get to greater affordability and you've committed the critical time we face we when we talk about to get to 30 or 35 or 40 percent is not just a hash tag treasure island we can make a lot better the mission bay we are building thirty and transbay thirty percent and giants site thirty percent through agreements i believe all of you

at some point vote in support those things were you indeed done not just as inclusion housing but city and tax precedes that went to making this real just to give a comparison at treasure island what we're talking about right now the current 25 percent affordable housing includes 20 percent that are units that will be built as standard alone sites but nonprofit the other 5 percent had been inclusionary housing that's a total of 6 percent of ever market-rate development will be inclusion now we're looking at changing our percentage citywide to 24 percent in every neighborhood its odd that a project is receiving a certain amount of investment will be 20 percent we

can do better and thank you, supervisor kim for follow-up on that. >> thank you fernando. >> next. >> good afternoon. i'm john and i think we need to start with reality checks that the 50 percent in construction costs in the city under the last 3 years due to the boom is a great challenge not only for affordable housing on treasure island but for the entire projects the billion dollars plus extra will be dramatically - there is not an identifiable solution when faced with the big problem lime the practical approach to solve the ones you can starting with, of course, the first phase the first step to solve the proximate cause of the deadline to notify the developer of the city's desire for 3 percent by

june will necessarily be a at the time of the developer to the ic for an extension the deadline at least for the year for the first phase on the flat island on ti he itself and the longer than extension for the two following phases that will come over the next 15 to 20 years. >> that will give you the chance of not having to solve the funding gap for the entire island we can't do today but solve the funding gap we into the weeds to get done by 2018 when lennar will start work on the phase one that way the number we need to solve for the affordable is much, much less than the entire project will be so i'm proposing a tactical step by step approach and we'll the

reasonable person developer will be willing to work with the city and that's where we should begin thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. supervisors my name is paul wormer and i'm fully in support of supervisor kim's proposal we have a problem the city that has been referred too many times the lack of housing for those not seriously weighty what is less often referred to when our building market-rate you're creating an additional demand for housing affordable to the middle-class and if you're building 25 percent a you've not meeting the induced demand let alone doing anything to add stock to support the marching e.r. the mirrorly protect in

transitional housing not touching that problem in a significant way there is abundant evidence this shows that a strong middle-income community is essential it provides the pathways for lower-income children of low income families to move up the economic ladder we're cutting that ousted here and to say that oh, we can only afford to build for the wealthy is a problem and we need strong leadership from the board of supervisors to make sure that's not what we're doing thank you. >> next speaker any more please step up. >> i'm a residence of treasure island i've been on the isle for 11

years i'm pretty long-winded but i'll keep is simple i want to respect the you gocy for affordable housing i took my kids about two weekends to feed the homelessness on division street any daughter said mom is this - we're one million away the way things look like on treasure island we don't know if we will be housed keep building and building and not trust what the builders say they rebuild and people move and the families never came back so i support your what you're doing supervisor jane kim's and ask you to support her as well. >> thank you. i want a clarification that's been zero displacement for the public housing in bayview hunters point.

>> anyone else that want to speak no public comment is closed. >> all right. supervisor kim. >> any last remarks. >> i want to thank would the director of tida and the commission for taking this up we have a real opportunity to explore all the ways we can increase the affordability and that's been approved this is one of the largest scale this is the largest scale development in san francisco a true opportunity to build a completely new neighborhood to make sure wear building as much quotes and middle-income housing as mentioned by several members of the public we're not talking about the divide between the rich and poor the ultra wealthy i didn't i think that is it a city priority and on the part of residence to make sure we're investing in the development and work with the

partnering with the private developer but also the public resources to make sure we are buildings has much affordability the future as possible i look forward to working closely with the task force i agree we should have multiple stakeholders including tida and i should note as something that is very unique are about this deal if the beginning the strong commitment to build the housing for the homeless this project is unique and this commitment to build housing for the formally homelessness and i'm proud of work that tida is engaged since 1999 to include 360 and the housing partnership and ploy shares and others for many of the formally homeless that are families and share there is 1 or 2 one for one housing we're able

to have additional housing on top of that redevelopment is something that board has supported in 2011 when the government - govern talented the dissolution of redevelopment this is an important tool that allows us to build more affordable housing in mission bay or hunters point shipyard or south of market yerba buena this is been ancele important tool for the taxpayers dollars and some of the increment thirty or 40 for the mass under the current environment that's exactly what we need those are the tools to explore and as the development evolved we'll ton to have conversations with the developer as well as what the city thank you to the members of the public that came out to speak i look forward to the

future discussion and i would like to ask the committee to make a motion to continue. >> i like that motion. >> to the call of the chair. >> seconded by supervisor peskin. >> supervisor wiener did you want to speak. >> well, no - actually so this is to the call of the chair the motion. >> to the call of the chair correct. >> mr. clerk you have that. >> i want to - >> supervisor wiener. >> so i want to and i as i mentioned at the beginning we can get any project we can get up to a higher affordability that is a good thing and i think that looking into this what it would take to increase the affordability of treasure island to we already know what it takes to get to the thirty or 37

percent that's a good thing and then we can make choices bans that my questioning in this hearing has been just to crystal clear we're talking about taxpayers and choices to do we increase the affordability on treasure island or put more money to in the small acquisition program in the castro or noah valley or western edition do we build for senior housing the sunset we're making choices so with that said, i know the investigation it maybe more cost effective your building in an entire neighborhood with our tax dollars to buy up for affordable that might be the most cost effective way for the affordable housing this is a great use of funds or maybe another use i'm

glad we've had this conversation. >> thank you very much madam chair. >> chair cohen through the chair i wanted to ask that in the next hearing we get a report from both our directors of mayor's office of housing and new development and our director bob becky emphasis if we this thing a project in sunset or noah valley i'm happy to vote for general fund dollars to use more affordable housing we know that we housing here on treasure island and know we have the support of commission and i have that neighborhood to build more affordable housing we've got to build where we know we can actually do it. >> thank you, supervisor kim mr. clerk voted on that measure please call item of. >> hearing to review the

shoubz production and the full-time jobs the city and future enrollment for the housing available and the projects in the pipeline and challenges it effect shoubz a recommendation of progress and legislation improvements. >> thank you, supervisor wiener is the author of that i'll i am sorry to him. >> thank you very much madam chair colleagues this hearing today is to receive status update from the city departments and from several universities about how we're doing in terms of of building creating student housing in san francisco providing housing for students is a critical part of addressing both our housing affordability needs and insuring that our local institutions of higher learning succeed and attract the very best students who are actually able to live in our

city we have tens of thousands of higher education students both college and earning degrees in san francisco i believe it pushes one hundred thousand not building nearly enough student housing to account for these student and their housing needs students have longer than term needs due to the under production those students are tossed into the housing fool to complete against the broader population drives up the housing costs not good for the students and broader population in san francisco these students could easily be housed in dorms or other forms of student housing instead of crowding into an already crowded housing market here in san francisco we know this lack of student

housing has incentivised violations of law frankly in terms of universities or one in particular shallowing up our buildings and rent-controlled stock and ken vefrt them into dorms we don't want to see that but student housing built for the students too many students are having to either crowd into overcrowded apartments or commute in from long, long distances either driving, or having to take transit for a long distance every single day we also see too many students that live in their cars and want to make sure we have student housing for those students so we forbode to find more and more ways to create housing in 2012

colleagues, i authored the student housing legislation that created incentives and exemptions for universities building student housing to make it easier and less expensive for them to build their own student housing to make sure that when they are doing it student housing development they maximize the number of unit thai put in those buildings so make it is important cost effective in student housing around the same time i offered the micro unit legislation allowing smaller studios in san francisco that was the topic of expensive debate some saying we were going to make. >> all units micro units that's not the truth the strongest advocates 0 were the housing developers and universities because motorbike

united are great housing today we'll hear the planning department and from 4 different universities usf and university of california, san francisco and california college of the arts to hear about their plan and we're also interested in hearing ideas for how to make it easier for universities to create student housing so colleagues if there are no preliminary comments supervisor peskin thank you for your work on this issue i'd like to start by asking emry rogers from the planning department to provide an update. >> thank you very much supervisors i'm emry rogers i have handful for the public's i'm a senior advisory are you and i'm glad to be here to talk about the student housing issue

that will coffer first, the form of student housing second the need for the housing timma type in san francisco and third some of the local policy and land use law around student housing and some recently as well as pending student housing projects in the pipeline so first, the form of student housing student housing once brought to said a traditionally on campus dorm now housing associated with colleges maybe on campus or off and take newcomers forms a dorm or an apartment or kitchen or some other group housing arrangement so second let's talk about the needs for student housing the city has we know has an overall housing crisis colleges and universities draw people to the city and will be competing with other recipient to find housing we have approximately

thirty such institutions with 80 puss students in total while some of the students may live in san francisco we estimate 40 thousand are needed colleagues provide only 90 thousand units. >> third i'm going to provide a short overview of the existing policy and land use law the general a plan the higher educational institutions should help to meet the housing demands especially for low income workers and students since 2010 the city has a couple of important laws the intent is 80 two-fold first for the most part is encourage the production of student housing and basically to protect our housing the first removed the inclusionary housing requirement and other housing

projects are required to having pay the inclusionary housing fee or provide the units as part of their projects student housing is now exempt and the inclusionary requirements is the largest impact fee in san francisco removing the fee offers fiscal incentive to build for student housing the 2010 ordinance prepared the significance and the provision - prevented the conversion of the student housing to get the housing built this law so you get to prevent the conversion of the community housing and during the hearings it is undesirable cancellation prohibiting this conversion element this southern the nodding law that supervisor wiener introduced it expand by

the effectiveness of the law and providing exemptions the original law had a requirement annual reports on the incomes of specific people living in the housing the 2012 changed to continue to have a diverse body not requiring specific individuals incomes under the new law instead of documenting the finances the institute must documents that thirty percent of the overall constitute body is low income that allowing law established the student housing so it w could be tracked they have a mechanism to capture the inclusionary fee if it converts to age provision and it continues with the student housing

so here's the definition this is today's existence allows for flexible dprupz and dwelling units with kitchen or sros and really anything on the one hand by educational use and student housing is premised in any zoning district where the underlying zoning is permitted student housing can be group housing or dwelling units. >> so lastly here are some specific zoning district in san francisco we've seen and maybe seeing the future under the law the production of about 4 hundred and 50 new beds of affordable housing and to remodel the to sate dorms and 8 hundred beds adams to the campus for beds are in the pipeline we considered for future approval the department has applications

for 17 hundred new beds these are associated with the two projects so really no presentation on student housing would be complete without a discussion of one institution that has provided housing as governor audit and oversight committee the academy of arts and their submitted operations to the building code those are legalize 18 hundred beds. >> so san francisco has seen an increase in the production of student housing still given the estimate that the city needs 40 thousand new beds and 9 thousand beds of with the increase and assume all the pipeline projects will be approved and provide for beds san francisco has a shortfall of

housing beds for 28 thousand thank you for inviting novelist us here today, we welcome our feedback thank you. >> thank you very much ms. rogers we now have excuse me. four different universities that had been providing us with updates and let's start with usf i'm sorry if i mispronounce our name that is the society vice chancellor. >> wow. we're getting set up i want to say and collaborated with two other public institutions here today so the chief financial officer of the hastening is here and will be

presenting as well as dr. holmes and thomas - we have the plans and we'd like to go through those the specific presentations give us a moment here. >> actually what i'll do to respect everybody's time there are 3 of the united states that use similar alphabets i'll describe usf the institution i'm presenting we're a public education system and one thing that distinguishes us from other schools we're graduate level only and focused exclusive on

the health sciences we don't have any under graduates e we'r a fairly small campus in terms of student size and so you'll see your numbers 6 thousand three hundred and plus entertainers i'll use the word trainee will we have folks that are graduated but you still still in residentscy and train we're a large employer in san francisco employing will this thousand staff and faculties we're a very big economic engine generating 29 jobs and we also consider ourselves and a documented for providing a huge amount of health care here the city and beyond

so let me talk about the high costs of housing and the impact here at usf rising housing costs are huge drivers the graduate student keep an eye out our average student four years ago graduated with one hundred and $16,000 in debt now, one and 40 thousand attributed to the housing costs of their housing it is really hard for us to keep pace with the private institutions that are competing with us with the best graduates and students and training confusing stanford university and harvard university very, offer grants and other types of financial aid we can't we're also championed we're limited in the amount of housing it is hard to extradite against cornell and columbia that has

large inventory and so let me take you to the demand amongst the housing and that correlates with the off campus housing our rent-controlled units are 40 percent below-market-rate right now if i look at two indicators that demands one the level of rejection in 2011 we were already rejecting 54 percent and now 64 so the folks are struggling the market to find housing we conducted a demand study of the trainees we're showing a year ago 51 now 61 percent will measure it again at the end of the year that's the trends we're able only to accommodate 14 percent of the students and 14 percent of

entertainers so that puts our shortfall of 2 thousand plus unit for our students and having have not addressed the junior faculty and staff the shortfall is really reaching the dire state at usf that competing our recruitment and i'm talking about trooenz but it is impacting all of our population and our executive vice chair chancellor one of our press tone positions summed 2 up nicely for usf the greatest cert 0 threat to the high cost of living the community usf success in life science and research and education has been what attracts the most passionate but we're losing tenants in all cigarettes of our

community so here's some of the goals we have one is to increase inventory and keep housing costs well below-market-rate as a point of references the usf in a one bedroom on average 2 husband $300 a month that's the current academy e academic level we increases our rates by 4 percent that's the goal even adding an additional lemons we are quantifying the demand for campus housing on the populations identifying the locations where we can develop on campus and identifying the types of ecology awhile all of the population needs the housing we prioritize it for trainees they're in the biggest need but humble demand from the junior faculties and others populations

this is a list of our 4 planned projects in hours the most forthcoming on minnesota street the dog patch schedule for 2019 i'm not read them all but point out we don't have anything come online soon i want to show you a graph it shows you our supply and demand the red line you see is our planned number of units and the orange and yellow lines are where we are to death to reach you see the huge shortfall with the deadliest but it is going to get better over time excuse me. this is the - our dear folks at hastings have invited us to look

at our inventory and you see that takes place takes up, up to where we want to be in the unfortunately not the whole 2035 actually hastings will be up to thirty 25 our biggest problem is the entertainers the generation we don't have a solution for them we looked at several off campus to build the master leasing and purchasing completed inventory none with respect feasible because of the high costs it is our perch to develop our own housing to ever not impact the housing in san francisco i want to point out that one of the other distinguishing characters about usf the fact our students and entertainetrainees need to

don't have the option to live far away because of the commuter impacts that's the ended up of the usf presentation. >> can i ask a question one question that i will ask of all the universities one thing i'm interested in and maybe at the end planning can come back up anything else we can do in terms of legislation to try to spur for group housing i know that usf is in certain aspects the community and isn't always subtract to some of the restrictions the city i know that cac didn't have a sub community and others universities that's one question

anything we can do better or more efficiently the other thing specific to the state is for usf do the reasons the uc system how do they in any way addressed fact that i'm not saying usf is unique obviously berkley is expensive and la but compared to should find uc campuses off the cart does the uc system as a whole take that in any that what into account. >> we meet with u pc for the equality campuses we unique we're the most expensive market you're right berkley and la are

not far behind so we're meetings with them they're looking for ways to help as well. >> do you think there is any prospective of the regents actually providing a meaningful approach in terms of cost of living dlaevenlz the various campuses the needs for campuses to provide for support from the regents they have they're on budget. >> the housing across the you can is supporting we don't receive funds other than that is generate from the rent that will be new for any core funds to pay for any aspects of housing most of the things we're working on they have requirement for the construction requires review and accelerate or combine other steps or maybe change the ways

thankful circulated the financing but not the actual funds. >> thank you. >> thank you members i'm david with the universities of the hastening college of law and as mentioned we're working on a collaboration with usf to meet the critical need but hastings and aclu face a critical housing shortage we have delivered a. >> can you speak directly. >> we've interfered into a letter of collaboration for the development of additional student housing we've got a business relationship with ucsf and a.m. an academic relationship we're hoping to leverage you see hastings notwithstanding a unique

relationship with the urban forest of california we've got a board of directors and face the same, same, issues as usf to your point supervisor wiener the funding student housing the public sector is at the trial challenging because of the reasons that my colleagues are are you aware of to these projects are self-supporting no state funding for the student housing the master plan for higher education all of the projects and when claire reserves to core funds the state universities can't pledge student fees or state appropriations the economics of those projects need to lend themselves to a housing project with rent levels that are truly

manageable by students hastings is a total professional school no undergraduate populations our students are all you know age over 21 special aged students they finance their education through themselves this is sad we have many hastings students and like usf our average debt for each student is one and $86,000 that is through financial aid so as opposed to to a sort of a setting where the parental support our students are self-independent and supportive so the developments of student housing is critical providing public education and moving financial barriers to assess that that otherwise exist we're able to save students up

to $43,000 over the course of 3 years that's the difference of medium one bedroom costs $3,000 and what we provide. >> are you i know usf is indicated i know the chancellor has shared they're losing residents to other programs because of cost of housing i'm guessing that is a yes are you seeing constructive some of the best of the best applicant choosing others universities. >> students weigh the cost of the attention with the schools ranking and all professional schools are extremely competitive environmentalist we compete stw is with uc davis all of the tuition i know the

constraint are past four or five years to you know the governor jerry brown direction so, yes. we're competing with other schools with pride again education we're a better school but good education at a lower cost and students are extremely cost conscious and debt conscience because of the great depression of 2008 and 2009 so if you're student is looking at choices to go to uc hastings they're able to wait until the last minute and start going to craigslist that where most of our housing is on and other cohort go to craigslist and look at the rents they have heart

attacks some students make other choices because of the cost we have a strong diversity level many of the students are first generations law school and many of the community are where the students come from have a deeply rooted debt of immersion so the answer is yes, we're going to student housing we want to develop more and the partners of ucsf our campus has the benefit have to the various outposts that usf manages and controls primary mission bay and general hospital so in terms of collaboration we're very well suited our students are calorie we're talking about and mr. haney on not just to share student housing but our entire

campus with usf we're talking about sharing our library, our social spates and amenities, providing access to the entire campus and treating them like they're a uc davis student we're exploring and expanding into the other areas of the world so this is a very exciting opportunity for both of the institutions to create additional vibrancy the tenderloin to support small businesses, to support positive growth, positive training on a non-displacement and non-gentrified and support our institutions. >> so you see our campus runs up and down mcallister street our facility was built in 1928 and

in need of modernization with the seismic you got and looking at putting in new student housing the state of california has appropriated $73 million for academic purposes our plan is upon the completion of the academic building on golden gate to develop an additional student housing at the site of the old academic building and upon it project mcallister built in 1928 and act watts the building so we're talking about a significant amount of housing between seven hundred and to 11 hundred new units and it will make a huge dent at least the professional school

realm we've removed to the colleagues at the state university to seek whether they'll interested in planning on for the graduate students we are talking about creating a graduate student village where san francisco state mba students acholic beverage and work with and live with students at usf so with that, any questions otherwise i'm going to turn it over to my colleagues. >> thank you very much. >> quite a while she's getting that up i want to take the opportunity and look forward to partnering with you i'm aloha the vice president for student

affairs in management finishing almost on my second year society vice president will be presenting you'll address did overview of housing on the campus and then my colleague on the related issues. >> so san francisco state is one of the 23 colleges the system prides itself on containing assets and excellence for the students that we serve all across the state of california as the state is one of the largest campus the system to keep on talking as we get the presentation up.

>> okay the importance of housing can't be understated to the academic success of the students we broikd into for all it is critical we have sufficient hours for the access to higher education we want to operation lists the importance of the affordability i'd like to share for the in coming nearly half of the students get a peel granted those are students who's families can make the least amount of higher education and a portion of students signals the fact we serve a high number of low income folks the other trend which has been not able the last 5 years is the increase of

demand for san francisco university as a designation campuses and students that are politically and entering as fredrick and increase the southern california. >> we don't have the power point can you just tells you. >> it is 28 percent of freshmen and then 47 percent are peel grant eligible sorry about that. >> compared to what it was 20 or thirty years ago. >> i'll say we were homeless from the prirmentd it was a counterpart campus, if you will, we prohibited the students from being homeless it is definitely a change for the campus. >> and then noted earlier is the public to note we're able to provide a total experience at costs per students the late data one bedroom is over 30 thousand

we recognize that 2001 we recognize not apples to apples but the reality is the students calculate and do the math it is something about living on campus we can provide beds on average from over 8 hundred to 12 hundred a month for that 10 month period so there is a big advantage we know that housing can provide an important royal in the retention of students to get group college and not just getting in our colleagues talking about the high lower-income it is important by the help them to stay in school. >> residential life podiums that are effected can are is a significant impact on retention rate in you have enough beds not enough beds - i think that barriers also have a positive

effect on helping students to stay in school and attend class and another reason it is important we provide student housing we can provide the developmental spectrum of housing options first time feshgz 18-years old smunt shouldn't be able to displace people we want them to combeej the community and socialize for people to carry out them to that like the traditional double corridor and lastly we want to contribute to the congratulation if you have an overall graduation initiative like to get the graduation to 65 percent by the year 2024 we've increased our

graduation rate and topped the 50 mark you wanted to share many of the graduates 80 percent stay in the bay area after they graduate they're an important part of workforce and our economic engine the bay area. >> so just quick statistics right now capacity to house over 4 thousand students this represents about 14 percent of our total just approximately thirty piously thousand our current occupancy is thirty percent and our wait list waivers it is last year, we have way more students we were able to house 2 thousand we cap it at 2 thousand we know we can't met. >> - you the 14 percent how does it chair and we're the

middle of the pack the canning allergy foundation existences a residential campus is 20 percent plus of gadz the housing piece we feel is tied to the mass transit and the 1250e7b89 this is actually from a scar that was done other sf state in 2013 that represents all the modes that students indicate that ultimately they arrive on campus in muni it is extremely popular under half of the students and we have a significant number of whackser bus all the ways it students are arriving into campus to attend class due to the employment,

etc. for the opportunities and obviously a shift no housing will have an impact on this a little bit about the students living on campus as you can see the vast for the right the 18 to 20 jr. rage a majority of freshmen living on campus because we could a have sufficient bed space as they go through their time we are not able to accommodate all students and again emphasis our diversities 70 percent are students of color so that is important we provide affordable housing. >> here's another way to think about the students that are living on campus so of the students that live on campus the largest chunk is accounted for by people from california but in the the bay area we have 21 percent that are from the bay area

3 that .4 from other countries or international students and about 13.3 percent from outside of this state. >> i'm going to turn it over to ad t moreen. >> thank you. >> to i'm tom the senior vice president for the development at sfta san francisco state i've been at the campus for 8 months the reason i came the position involves running the student housing and managing the facility development how is this better? overwhelms to show you. >> couple of planning slides i'm working on to look at this issue the of the student access and the roll it student housing plays i know that you you know san francisco state it is one of

the areas that's been identified for the affordable housing bonus program by statute by the sfament this slide indicates we've been trying to increase the supply within the housing stock by tripling or doubling rooms maybe didn't have this kind of sdpents student occupancy by making the apartment furnished rather than unfurnished but with even though a 13 percent increase in the supply we realized that a significant increase in our demand by 40 percent so the wait list appears last summer when all the deposits were take into account 25 hundred openly on top of we try to cap at 2 thousand but this past summer an immense increase we reduced over one

percent jr. but where the students live and how they get to campus and the ti s one hour transit continuity and automobile commute while 50 percent of the students live in san francisco 50 percent in other parts a far within quarter the east bay and quarter in the south bay 45 percent of them in city and 56 percent on campus so the one thing about building on campus that has great advantages both so the campus and he does community was respectfully the burden of the transportation system we're very well served by transit and bart plus the san francisco shuttle the m line and it may ultimately

involve the j line and then we've got above and beyond the call of duty four or five bus lines it serve the campus and it is very accessible to the extent of the burden of the housing those are students the community and finally what are we are doing now we have a project call the hallow project that is with the developers that may janitor 200 to 4 hundred 50 beds of housing in the next few years we're curiosity under construction on the timely center for social life for students on campus and recreation and no undertaking studies from the northern area to look at how development over time can yield as many as 6 to 8

additional units of student housing that gets us 80 up to the present goal of looking for housing to 50 percent of students that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i'm sorry what is the timetable. >> we're developing the studies now the timetable for the hallway it might be occupied by 2018 but looking an grateful timetable for the other planning effort hoping to realize housing within the next 3, 4, 5 two or three years they'll have to be phased because of volume but something that is part of study we're doing now just how fast and and at current 14 percent student housing what percentage i mean, i know this whole

process who percentage. >> so the goal will be somehow from 40 to 50 percent range staff this generates overseeing numbers and looking at ferment student eventual. >> a lot of the students are apartment right now. >> thank you and the same question with c su is that part of the master plan you required - >> yes. self-sustaining. >> great >> to what do you attribute or the shift over the last generation from state being a commuter campus to most of its students actively coming from outside of san francisco and the bay area to what do you attribute that. >> i would. >> other than we're the best

city the world. >> i will let aloha speak but part of it operationally is the extreme growth in the college population picture their realizing the connection to student housing is a portion of that. >> it is technology i think that social media and the internet have allowed the students to look at the push and pull we are seeing others parts of california are also more likely to pull 80 students from san francisco students are looking for the match and the distinct institutional type the story what the state stands for students if southern california are looking for that and the more emphasis on the sustainability and other types

of value will pick that institution the internet has facilitated that. >> interesting. >> great thank you new ccw co david. >> thank you supervisor. >> well happy to share with you as probably the smallest school we're 9 smallest crack for those of you don't know a private nonprofit school 2000 schools and 16 hundred undergraduates and one and 8 years old this

image of our campus at the potrero hill we then have been busy from the get-go on let's see there we go. >> on working on this issue with you supervisor and others and we've all seen those numbers of the shortfall and i think earlier on with the other schools we thought that was our responsibility to provide 50 percent of our students with housing if we can figure out how to do that with the help of the sf pack and tim colleen and hosted by dave hayes valley we have 3 conversations that brought the planning department and the developers and schools together and that facts led to the 3 pieces of legislation we're discussed and we were able to get a project underway before

the third piece of legislation was underway the panoramic on third street and mission to give you an idea how onramp these things take this is the timeline and the developers the room i think he'll speak during the speakers portion this building opened in august 2015 an 11 story concrete building at 9th street and mission and 5 cca students and 5 floors of congressional try students a stein way the lobby green as all get out and no parking 4 hundred indoor parking one for beds and great music the lobby, good presence on mission street the plan pushes scoots to the corners and micro units on the

in broadside and it is packed with various sustainability and timely features each students the water is hot and cold and diagonally monitored the students can watch it is an amazing building affective if you have not been - this is one of the micro units based on a unit that has a full sized bathroom with a full ada compliment and then houses two students but also has this natural festivity one full on kitchen in the unit dishwasherer and micro wave. >> how many square feet is the total unit. >> pacific- 2 - >> (inaudible). >> yeah. 270 for the is to see and 5 for - it was operational

windows but the bay window it has a filter that changes the air on the hour you can cook curry and an hour later not smell it so - >> it's go on got an amazing roof deck that looks at over to one side at twitter heergd and the other south of market and arena the city and barbecue features on the roof and there it is at corner we back at our campus busy where supervisor cowen is getting a special use district so i'm happy to say in addition to the completed project who to the projects from the planning department so the yellow represents our special use

district and i'm going to give you copies of this this is impossible to read on screen those are the housing strategies and basically, what you'll see this calls out for off campuses housing and near and on campus housing the panoramic satisfies our campus on transit next to the merging district and the housing the bottom right hand corner that is actor arc with a private developer that is 200 and thirty beds apartment style large units 4 bedroom units and this went in phone number for p pa last july and the last project in planning the one called hooper it is 5 hundred

first time freshmen years right on campus and the p pa the first week in february one of the things i want to supervisor wiener you've switzerland asked us what are the challenges here and one of the big thing is timing if you're a developer you can build on a permeate and wherever you get done through - if you're a student housing first of all, we have to package all the way to the apply to financial aid and 15 months to market it and gunmen get 3 days to fill it like hit the 3 days or we have to wait another year so one of the challenges in student housing is getting the planning timeline and the occupation timeline to line up so i look at himself. >> when you say planning you

mean overall or planning with the planning department. >> i mean, the process ever going through the planning and i'll show you you know for instance, this is argue 75 arkansas timeline i picked off the developers lists every time their moving through there but reserve the engineer if it hits a month late it didn't work i guess i'll ask you may hear this from the developer we talk about that early the planning process but it is not funded you missed that date your screed for another year 0 so that's it. >> i will say the project i showed you the panoramic those beds are 40 percent below-market-rate they filed like that we have displaced as the other schools do and it is

such a phenomenal boost to the community we have typically able to house freshmen students only but now house sophomores and be able to have a community continue it is great. >> i'm sorry what is your student body. >> 2000. >> and how many do house the housing. >> currently house 5 hundred to 2000. >> debris and how do you price u the units. >> we price across the housing toyshops we don't necessarily just do a passed through but on a panoramic kind of how the developer we worked with was able to both acquire the site and deliver an efficient building and we were able to prices that quite although the mask numbers are between 8 hundred and twelve hundred a bed if you can hesitate the zone the

students make it work if not they'll go off the market and take family housing off. >> your mastering this. >> at least master lease half the building compensatory. >> but in terms of student housing for cca it is all master at large. >> it is. >> and you're riding subsidies or whatever you're paying to the owner do you pass that through 100 percent to the students. >> observing live in staff and other folks to operate it in terms of the developer covers the basic operations we have the aids and staff ash oh, for the students i mean so if you're paying the owner say $12 a month do you pass that through to the students. >> we take all the housing

toyshops and we moderate the more expensive ones down with the ones we already own and 0 we price we're pricing below-market-rate introducing the housing and most of other schools we're 80 percent of our students are in need of first aid you're basically trying to package the affordable housing fund. >> in terms of you said that the panoramic project was 40 percent below-market rate is that 40 percent in terms of what you're paying for the maneuvered lease or the students. >> the students what they can do. >> in terms of what causing it to be 40 percent below-market-rate what is your take on that. >> a brilliant developer as far as i, tell and the legislation to be honest with

you; right? it wouldn't have been able to get there without it. >> okay. thank you very much. >> and can i ask going forward to come back to the hearing so the public can't see who is speaking thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i believe this is the end of the university i want to appreciate and thank the of the united states for coming out today and taking the time to put together this thoughtful presentation and provides useful information i think a lot of people unless they're thinking about it they're not realizing how many students and how the students have access to dorms and how difficult an issue this really is this huge huge issue at this point open up for public comment unless supervisor peskin has an additional comment i will call with the comment

cards through the chair if this is okay (calling names). >> good afternoon, supervisors dee dee workman from the san francisco chamber of commerce we want to thank you supervisor wiener for holding this hearing and for your 2012 legislation as well your recognition of the lack of student housing in san francisco and your attempt to continue to focus attention and find solution i have a college age student myself born and raised we have this conversation with him and his friends they can't find housing the city when in school and insufficient housing by the schools when they go out through the open market the property owners often don't want to rent to the students

this is a catch-22 sometimes taking single-family homes off the market the only way to live for a whole bunch to take the four businessmen's bedrooms and find nobody will rent to them so this is really, really i know very difficult we have so many world-class institutions of higher learning the city and make sure that the students and the faculties can come here and the students when graduated enter the office of economic workforce development and so on so we appreciate our continued conversations and your focus on this we reality appreciate the work that the is schools with doing to represent to find creative flexible solutions to this problem and we he chapel tomato help in any way we can thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >>